Alexandra von Lieven Trade Contacts and Cultural Exchange between Egypt and India in the Ptolemaic and Roman Period Abstract. When speaking about Egypt’s cultural contacts, only the nearest Mediterranean, African and Near Eastern civilizations are usually taken into account. However, during the Greco-Roman period, Egypt also had direct contact with Ancient India via the Red Sea trade. While this fact is in princi‐ ple well known, these contacts are usually seen as relating to Greco-Roman trade. However, this trade was physically conducted via Egypt and conse‐ quently generated a cultural exchange between Egypt and India, a fact which has not yet elicited much study. This is perhaps due to the fact that specialists in Ancient History did not have a particular interest in Egypt, while Egyptol‐ ogists were for a long time not interested in the later epochs, believing that Egyptian culture had long since declined by then. As recent research has shown that Ancient Egyptian culture was alive and thriving until well into the Roman period, this question now needs to be re-evaluated. Egyptian Contacts to the East up to the Ptolemaic Period When Egyptologists think of civilizations with which Ancient Egypt had cul‐ tural contact, many African, Levantine, Mesopotamian, Anatolian or Aegean cultures and countries readily come to mind. Ancient India and her neighbours are normally not included in this list. However, they clearly should be, as there can be no doubt that at least from the Ptolemaic Period, i.e. from the 3rd century BCE onwards, direct trade contacts between the two cultures did indeed exist. The interesting question is whether these direct contacts developed only then or had already been flourishing before, and since when. Indirect contact must have already existed from the Predynastic Period (ca. 3500 BCE) onwards, as lapis lazuli has been a prized commodity since this time.1 As far as we know, this gemstone is only found in Afghanistan. However, it seems to have reached 1 Alfred Lucas and James Harris, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, London 19624, 398–400; Paul Nicholson and Ian Shaw, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technol‐ ogy, Cambridge 2000, 39–40. 61 Published in: Nikolas Jaspert, Sebastian Kolditz (eds.): Entre mers—Outre-mer: Spaces, Modes and Agents of Indo-Mediterranean Connectivity, Heidelberg: Heidelberg University Publishing, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17885/heiup.355.492 62 – Alexandra von Lieven Egypt via Mesopotamian intermediaries and up to this day, there has been no reason to assume that the Egyptians had any idea where the stone really came from (except that they probably knew it was very far away). According to Egyptian texts from the 2nd millennium BCE, it was supposed to come from Tfrr.t, literally “Lapislazuli land”, a place not yet identified, located in the gen‐ eral direction of other Near Eastern neighbours.2 In fact, it is likely that this is just a geographical name made up to give a place of provenance at all. Bactria The question since when the Egyptians had more precise knowledge of those far-away regions to the east, even beyond Mesopotamia, is not without interest insofar as there is a great debate on the dating of the so-called Bentresh Stela, a text mentioning a princess of Bakhtan.3 This toponym, known from several other sources as well, clearly denotes Bactria. It is equally certain that the text of the stela, purportedly written in the reign of Ramses II, is a later pseudepi‐ graph propagating a particular form of the god Khonsu. The question as to when the text was originally composed remains unanswered. Epigraphically, the stela looks quite plausible for a dating to the Third Intermediate Period, which would also fit the oldest other attestations for this particular deity, namely Khonsu-the-Counsellor (Ḫnsw p3 ỉri ̯ sḫr.w). It is therefore no surprise that such a date has been proposed in the past by some scholars. Yet, it seems hard to believe that Bactria as such was already known in this period and Kim Ryholt has recently plausibly suggested that the text as a whole should be understood in the framework of an imitatio Alexandri, thus being a composi‐ 2 James Harris, Lexicographical Studies in Ancient Egyptian Minerals, Berlin 1961, 124– 129, 134; Lucas and Harris, Materials (cf. n. 1), 400; Jürgen Osing, Hieratische Papyri aus Tebtunis I: The Carlsberg Papyri 2 (Carsten Niebuhr Institute Publications 17), Copenha‐ gen 1998, 107–109; Holger Kockelmann, Die Fremdvölkerlisten in den Soubassements der ptolemäisch-römischen Heiligtümer. Feindnamen und Feindvernichtungsrituale im Tempel zwischen Tradition und Wandel, in: Von Meroe bis Indien. Fremdvölkerlisten und nubische Gabenträger in den griechisch-römischen Tempeln, ed. Holger Kockelmann and Alexa Rickert (Soubassementstudien V, Studien zur spätägyptischen Religion 12), Wies‐ baden 2015, 3–141, here 71. 3 Orell Witthuhn, Heike Sternberg-el Hotabi, Moritz Klimek et al., Die Bentreschstele: Ein Quellen- und Lesebuch. Forschungsgeschichte und Perspektiven eines ptolemäerzeitli‐ chen Denkmals aus Theben (Ägypten) (Göttinger Miszellen Occasional Studies 2), Göttin‐ gen 2015; Joachim Quack, Importing and Exporting Gods? On the Flow of Deities between Egypt and its Neighboring Countries, in: The Dynamics of Transculturality. Con‐ cepts and Institutions in Motion, ed. Antje Flüchter and Jivanta Schöttli, Heidelberg 2015, 255–277, here 269–270. Trade Contacts and Cultural Exchange – 63 tion from the Ptolemaic Period at the earliest.4 This date corresponds to a recent dating proposal by the Göttingen Bentresh Study Group.5 India The earliest textual mentions of India proper (Hnṭwy, later also Hntw) date to the Persian Period. They do not contain any information, but just mention the toponym in a list of subjugated foreign countries.6 Such lists were a stock fea‐ ture of Egyptian political representation and while they often transported tradi‐ tional, even outdated information, they were updated if there was a specific need and interest to do so. Thus, in the Persian Period, the lists reflect the Persian Empire and its border countries. Whether any more detailed informa‐ tion on these countries was available in Egypt is unfortunately unknown. Against this background, the expedition of Alexander the Great and the subsequent reign of the Ptolemies as kings of Egypt led to a significant change. Suddenly, more detailed knowledge of India was available in Egypt. While surely at first this knowledge was accessible in Greek-speaking circles in Alex‐ andria, there is good reason to assume that it also spread further. At any rate, literary texts written in Demotic, the contemporary script and language of the native Egyptians, begin to mention India as well. In such literature, India and Bactria are not just names: we are told much more about them.7 4 Kim Ryholt, Imitatio Alexandri in Egyptian Literary Tradition, in: The Romance between Greece and the East, ed. Tim Whitmarsh and Stuart Thomson, Cambridge 2013, 59–78, esp. 62–72. 5 Witthuhn, Bentreschstele (cf. n. 3), 62–67. 6 George Posener, La première domination perse en Égypte. Recueil d’inscriptions hiéro‐ glyphiques (Bibliothèque d’Étude 11), Cairo 1936, 70, 187, Pl. V (no. 9); Jean Yoyotte, The Egyptian Statue of Darius, in: The Palace of Darius at Susa. The Great Royal Residence of Achaemenid Persia, ed. Jean Perrot, London 2013, 240–279; Günter Vittmann, Tradition und Neuerung in der demotischen Literatur, in: Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 125 (1998), 62–77, esp. 75–77; for the later lists in Greco-Roman period temples see Kockelmann, Die Fremdvölkerlisten in den Soubassements (cf. n. 2), 3–141. 7 Martin Stadler, Einführung in die ägyptische Religion ptolemäisch-römischer Zeit nach den demotischen religiösen Texten (Einführungen und Quellentexte zur Ägyptologie 7), Berlin 2012, 55–56 with n. 260; Ryholt, Imitatio Alexandri (cf. n. 4), 72–78; Joachim Quack, Isis, Thot und Arian auf der Suche nach Osiris, in: Demotic Literary Texts from Tebtunis and Beyond, The Carlsberg Papyri 11, ed. Kim Ryholt (Carsten Niebuhr Institute Publications 36), Copenhagen (in press). See also below. 64 – Alexandra von Lieven Maritime Trade between Egypt and India As has been stated, interest in this part of the world was obviously fostered by an interest in Alexander the Great and his exploits. Soon, however, another ele‐ ment is to be reckoned with, namely direct contacts between Indians and Egyp‐ tians via trade relations.8 Such trade took place in the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods and is well known from Greek documentary papyri9 and ancient authors and texts like the famous Periplus Maris Erythraei.10 This can also be proven by archaeological finds from several important Red Sea ports (for details see the paper by Andrea Jördens in this volume). The archaeological finds espe‐ cially are of great relevance as they demonstrate the physical presence of actual Indians on Egyptian soil and not just Indian goods transported by Greeks.11 On the one hand, this concerns the presence of large quantities of Indian house‐ hold ceramics in mid-1st century CE Berenike. On the other hand, sherds (including one of a Roman amphora) inscribed in Tamil Brāhmī have been found in Berenike and Koptos, as well as others bearing Prakrit inscriptions in Qusayr al-Qadīm, ancient Myos Hormos. While those inscriptions have only been few in number up to now, the recently published inscriptions from Hoq cave on the Isle of Socotra with nearly 250 graffiti in different languages and scripts,12 including south Indian Brāhmī and even north Indian Kharoṣṭhī, should dispel any doubt that Indians themselves really travelled all the way to Egypt. In fact, the Brāhmī inscriptions 8 Steven Sidebotham, Roman Economic Policy in the Erythra Thalassa 30 B.C.-A.D. 217, Leiden 1986; Roberta Tomber, Indo-Roman Trade. From Pots to Pepper, London 2008.